fdalumnus

 
 
I had to read this a few times. Thought it may be an April Fool's joke, but I realized that was what, eight weeks ago ?
 
Regarding soap boxes, you see an adversary, I see an individual exercising the right to free speech.
 
Taxpayers do have rights, most importantly the right to hear the truth about any manner. Tax savings ? A double edged sword. When was the last time (especially) in Westchester you saw a piece of fire apparatus that wasn't considered a "parade wagon," with all the bells and whistles, often duplicating what already exists in their own dept.
 
Back to the facts. Depts with career staff on duty 24/7/365 have a faster response time than those that don't.  In no way is this the fault of an all volunteer dept., Its just the way it is.
 
I got a job (now retired) and had and still have a life, one beyond my wildest drams, all because of my career as a firefighter. A career I attained by taking a written test with 4,000 to 5,000 other people, then scoring high enough to be in the roughly top 125 who were actually hired. The career academy. which wasn't a "show up and you pass" type of deal. Then 22 years putting up with, for the most part, know it all chiefs, AKA better known as the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker. 
 
The situation in Port Chester has nothing to do with tax savings. Nothing. The facts truly spell that out. It's all about jealousy, ego, and, pure lunacy, all on the part of the chiefs of that dept. 

I've been pretty silent on this issue for awhile, but this is getting pretty out of hand.  Just a a disclaimer, I am a Firefighter at a 100% volunteer house. Since our company made the decision to go 100% volunteer 2 1/2 years ago, we have been staffed with volunteers only 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, averaging about 6 men on duty at a time. So nobody can claim that I drink any IAFF Kool-Aid... I'm simply going to make my point on the basis of public safety only.
 
Port Chester's decision to lay off the eight career Firefighters was just plain stupid. By PC's own admission, Port Chester has only 150 active, interior-qualified volunteers (though I've heard the actual number may be half that, but I'll take them at face value) to staff 7 companies. Dividing those evenly, we're looking at around 21 volunteers per company. I'd assume most of these people have day jobs, and to my knowledge PC volunteers do not have live-in members who provide daytime staffing, so realistically, how many guys get on the road during the day for a call? How can anyone argue that response times will NOT go up?  It's just simple math, folks. In most places, the volunteer model will not provide the same level of protection that a combination model will.
 
If the accusation that the Chief ordered his men to damage the house is true, the Chief (and any volunteers who followed that obviously illegal order) should be removed, and criminal charges should be considered. "Firefighters" who pull that kind of crap have no business wearing the uniform. People like that are the reason volunteers are treated like second-rate Firefighters in so much of the country.
 
The PCFD Volunteers need to make a decision regarding their leadership. I really hope they have some Line Officers who are considering running against the Chiefs and fixing this mess. It's not about career or volunteer, it's about the service you provide to the public.

 
"fdalumnus", as a Retired Firefighter from a small Ct city combo dept I can totally relate to your story. Every word that is.
 
What is sad about the whole deal is that sometimes good, dedicated volunteer firefighters get a bad rap. I certainly don't mean to offend ALL volunteer firefighters. I have many friends who volunteer their services. There is also a mutual respect for each other. 
 
But when discussing the topic of those firefighter unions, it has always been a give and take. Of course the city represented what the taxpayers can afford and the firefighter union making its case for the firefighters. Just as the unions representing the police officers, public works, teachers etc. 
 
Another myth is that those firefighter unions are all about taking. The firefighters union often takes a stand on what is best in the publics interest as well. 
 
Several years ago it was the members of my firefighters union for several members to attend EMT school. Three out of four classes were attended by these union firefighters on their own time. It was later decided that each member on a piece of apparatus be an EMT in order to help the public in their time of need. Yes, it was the firefighters union that established that policy to benefit it's citizens. 
 
The next step was to get the much needed medical equipment to do that job, and that's just what that union did. 
 
The union pushed and was finally successful to get all newly hired firefighters to attend the extensive 16 week Probie School, where they were trained by the best and most experienced instructors in the state. 
 
It was the union that pushed for the funding of Public Education in order to teach the public just what to do in case of fire. 
 
It was NOT city hall that pushed for these things but those Union Firefighters who did. 
 
I would like "FD7807" to explain how eliminating career firefighters would NOT have an effect on the publics safety. How a group of union firefighters are making it sound so risky. How it is just union rhetoric telling the people their lives are at risk. "FD7807", you certainly have your right to speak and I'm willing to listen. My guess a few others are willing to listen as here as well.
 
Just as a point of interest as well. It took me six test before I got the job. And I got it in a place I had never even been to before, let alone know the right people. 
 
If it was meant to be that I remain as a volunteer firefighter, I would have accepted that. But I would NEVER in any way try to put down somebody who got that career firefighter job instead of myself. I'd probably actually respect them for the job they do. 

You know who else has rights too?  Employees, even non-union ones.
 
I agree that the whole story needs to be told.  I read an article that stated the department had 150 interior and 150 non-interior members, but it failed to mention what the average volunteer turnout is for calls.  That number is more important than the first two.
 
You don't have to like the "union rhetoric", but the reality is the public does have a higher risk now.  When you eliminate on-duty, in-station staffing, the dispatch to arrival on scene time increases by at least a few minutes on average.  Minutes matter when your house is on fire. 

 
 
I had to read this a few times. Thought it may be an April Fool's joke, but I realized that was what, eight weeks ago ?
 
Regarding soap boxes, you see an adversary, I see an individual exercising the right to free speech.
 
Taxpayers do have rights, most importantly the right to hear the truth about any manner. Tax savings ? A double edged sword. When was the last time (especially) in Westchester you saw a piece of fire apparatus that wasn't considered a "parade wagon," with all the bells and whistles, often duplicating what already exists in their own dept.
 
Back to the facts. Depts with career staff on duty 24/7/365 have a faster response time than those that don't.  In no way is this the fault of an all volunteer dept., Its just the way it is.
 
I got a job (now retired) and had and still have a life, one beyond my wildest drams, all because of my career as a firefighter. A career I attained by taking a written test with 4,000 to 5,000 other people, then scoring high enough to be in the roughly top 125 who were actually hired. The career academy. which wasn't a "show up and you pass" type of deal. Then 22 years putting up with, for the most part, know it all chiefs, AKA better known as the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker. 
 
The situation in Port Chester has nothing to do with tax savings. Nothing. The facts truly spell that out. It's all about jealousy, ego, and, pure lunacy, all on the part of the chiefs of that dept. 

 
 
I had to read this a few times. Thought it may be an April Fool's joke, but I realized that was what, eight weeks ago ?
 
Regarding soap boxes, you see an adversary, I see an individual exercising the right to free speech.
 
Taxpayers do have rights, most importantly the right to hear the truth about any manner. Tax savings ? A double edged sword. When was the last time (especially) in Westchester you saw a piece of fire apparatus that wasn't considered a "parade wagon," with all the bells and whistles, often duplicating what already exists in their own dept.
 
Back to the facts. Depts with career staff on duty 24/7/365 have a faster response time than those that don't.  In no way is this the fault of an all volunteer dept., Its just the way it is.
 
I got a job (now retired) and had and still have a life, one beyond my wildest drams, all because of my career as a firefighter. A career I attained by taking a written test with 4,000 to 5,000 other people, then scoring high enough to be in the roughly top 125 who were actually hired. The career academy. which wasn't a "show up and you pass" type of deal. Then 22 years putting up with, for the most part, know it all chiefs, AKA better known as the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker. 
 
The situation in Port Chester has nothing to do with tax savings. Nothing. The facts truly spell that out. It's all about jealousy, ego, and, pure lunacy, all on the part of the chiefs of that dept. 

 
 
I had to read this a few times. Thought it may be an April Fool's joke, but I realized that was what, eight weeks ago ?
 
Regarding soap boxes, you see an adversary, I see an individual exercising the right to free speech.
 
Taxpayers do have rights, most importantly the right to hear the truth about any manner. Tax savings ? A double edged sword. When was the last time (especially) in Westchester you saw a piece of fire apparatus that wasn't considered a "parade wagon," with all the bells and whistles, often duplicating what already exists in their own dept.
 
Back to the facts. Depts with career staff on duty 24/7/365 have a faster response time than those that don't.  In no way is this the fault of an all volunteer dept., Its just the way it is.
 
I got a job (now retired) and had and still have a life, one beyond my wildest drams, all because of my career as a firefighter. A career I attained by taking a written test with 4,000 to 5,000 other people, then scoring high enough to be in the roughly top 125 who were actually hired. The career academy. which wasn't a "show up and you pass" type of deal. Then 22 years putting up with, for the most part, know it all chiefs, AKA better known as the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker. 
 
The situation in Port Chester has nothing to do with tax savings. Nothing. The facts truly spell that out. It's all about jealousy, ego, and, pure lunacy, all on the part of the chiefs of that dept. 

FD7807 - I don't have to claim anything......your hero (I mean zero) Fire Chief was the stooge that stood before his personnel and went on a tirade encouraging vandalism and other types of obscene conduct against a Union member. 
 
Care to comment on why a Fire Chief would behave so irrationally or irresponsibly?
 
Is his behavior acceptable to you? Do you find this normal? 
 
Rather than rant about Unions and demonstrate your personal animus or jealousy for career that you could next have, try and build a case to defend the actions of this Chief and his cohorts.
 
This discussion will work far better if you actually stay on the issues that are tangible.
 
Save the Ben Franklin and taxpayer mantra for your next XXXL T-shirt printing or belly-bumping amongst your pals in the beer garden. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
I had to read this a few times. Thought it may be an April Fool's joke, but I realized that was what, eight weeks ago ?
 
Regarding soap boxes, you see an adversary, I see an individual exercising the right to free speech.
 
Taxpayers do have rights, most importantly the right to hear the truth about any manner. Tax savings ? A double edged sword. When was the last time (especially) in Westchester you saw a piece of fire apparatus that wasn't considered a "parade wagon," with all the bells and whistles, often duplicating what already exists in their own dept.
 
Back to the facts. Depts with career staff on duty 24/7/365 have a faster response time than those that don't.  In no way is this the fault of an all volunteer dept., Its just the way it is.
 
I got a job (now retired) and had and still have a life, one beyond my wildest drams, all because of my career as a firefighter. A career I attained by taking a written test with 4,000 to 5,000 other people, then scoring high enough to be in the roughly top 125 who were actually hired. The career academy. which wasn't a "show up and you pass" type of deal. Then 22 years putting up with, for the most part, know it all chiefs, AKA better known as the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker. 
 
The situation in Port Chester has nothing to do with tax savings. Nothing. The facts truly spell that out. It's all about jealousy, ego, and, pure lunacy, all on the part of the chiefs of that dept. 

I would like to think that this thread has been an education without opening a book.
 
Add in two other threads in which a serious discussion has taken place. The threads of:
  "Paid Firefighter lay offs contested by residents, FDNY/Garden City News"
  "Village of Port Chester Disbands Career Fire Dept".
 
There should be no doubt in any firefighters mind just what side of the fence they need to be on. You have been presented with a well written group of statements, many backed up with facts. I commend those who took the time to speak here to explain the rights and wrongs of volunteer and career firefighter relationships.
 
 This story is not only played out in Port Chester or Garden City, NY, but many other places across the country as well. People are following these stories whether on this site or other fire dept sites. I know many members in Connecticut, both career and volunteer certainly are.
 
  Perhaps this was a "wake up call" to some who felt we could just write those career firefighters off. We now see that way of thinking kind of back fired for a group of chiefs who now may have to explain their position. They now may be required to give facts on why they felt the need to cut those eight career firefighters. When I would think, most chiefs would totally disagree with that decision. As someone mentioned, how would eliminating these firefighters make it safer for those citizens and the firefighters as well. I hope they have a good answer for that.
 
 As a retired firefighter and a citizen of a small city about 100 miles from Port Chester, I have been directly involved in trying to make small, but significant changes within that city involving career and volunteer firefighters. After meeting with the then city manager about some serious issues that I saw going on within the departments last year. These issues also greatly involved the publics and firefighter safety as well.
 
 One example was an occupied house fire in which a fire house with eight career firefighters were ONLY 1.8 miles away. They were NEVER called by the volunteer commanding officer. Instead two other volunteer fire depts. were requested, one from as far away as eight miles. Those career firefighters each spent 16 weeks at a firefighter recruit school to learn their trade. Yet they were NEVER called. In fact, those career firefighters are actually closer than the first due volunteer company. All part of the same city.
 
  There was another very serious haz mat incident in a warehouse and those career firefighters, including 4 Haz Mat Techs, were never requested until another Haz Mat Team responding some 15 miles away actually requested them to respond. There has been other incidents as well.
 
  With no positive results from the city manager, OR those Volunteer Chiefs, I decided to go to a local newspaper about these issues. I have provided to that reporter dates, times and facts. Within the last two months, one volunteer dept has called that career dept twice. Including one call to where that building fire was less than a year earlier. "I guess they know somebody is watching".
 
  As I understand it, that newspaper reporter is still in the process of conducting interviews. In 2008, a civilian died less than two miles from that career firehouse. All while the commanding officer felt the need only for volunteer firefighters much farther away.
 
  So as we see, its not only Port Chester or Garden City where some volunteer chiefs are very willing to put the citizens as well as his own volunteer firefighters at risk. I hope things DO change without getting into the newspaper. It just won't look good if that story comes out. So stay tuned as these events happen as well.

I do not believe, that the pc chiefs are still in office after the breaking news 12 report about the chiefs comments.Are the village board members that corrupt not to grow a set and do the right thing.You have a individual who is sworn in to protect life and property, and he makes comments to other members to break a residents Windows. Something stinks. It also makes me think that the members of this dept. Don't rise up and demand that they be removed and back the professional firefighters to get their jobs back. Come on guys open your eyes your leaders are giving your dept. a black eye, not only in your village, in Westchester, but across ny and the country.

I beg to differ regarding if a career person made these statements whether there would be a line of volunteers calling for his (her) head. 
 
Did you ever work (or serve) in a combo dept. ? If you did, then you know the correct answer. 
 
Lets not beat this thing to death. Hopefully everything will come out in the wash.
 

Alan, good points.
 
And, as my late father once told one of his ass-kissing subordinates; "Nobody likes a rat." I also don't like that it took so long for this incident to be brought to the forefront. However, it shows a true lack of professionalism and decency on the part of the chief. Unfortunately, times have changed (not always for the better) and standards of conduct are always open to (intense at times) scrutiny. 
 
As Warner Wolf used to say, "Lets go to the videotape." By today's standards, he's guilty of conduct unbecoming a (fill in the blanks). His credibility, questionable from the outset, is at an all time low. Not someone I'd want, or trust, having my back at an emergency, or in the company rooms. 

Alan, good points.
 
And, as my late father once told one of his ass-kissing subordinates; "Nobody likes a rat." I also don't like that it took so long for this incident to be brought to the forefront. However, it shows a true lack of professionalism and decency on the part of the chief. Unfortunately, times have changed (not always for the better) and standards of conduct are always open to (intense at times) scrutiny. 
 
As Warner Wolf used to say, "Lets go to the videotape." By today's standards, he's guilty of conduct unbecoming a (fill in the blanks). His credibility, questionable from the outset, is at an all time low. Not someone I'd want, or trust, having my back at an emergency, or in the company rooms. 

I like how some here will continue to try and sugar-coat what this story is about (very predictable).
 
It is also cute how one clown had such a "strong" defense of his fellow volunteers that he blurted out the "get a life, get a job" rebuttal (that kind of response could get you on the fast track for a Chief's position in Port Chester). 
 
Sorry folks...."it is what it is"..... and that is a poorly orchestrated plan to retaliate against Union firefighters for blowing the whistle about actual problems within someone's little kingdom. 
 
I know that many volunteers have traditionally cherished the "victim role" in the endless career vs. volunteer saga, but this piece of history should not be looked upon for anything more that exactly what it is = textbook anti-union animus . 
 
This story will not have a happy ending for those who had a hand in the release of these firefighters.
 
 

Actually, the presence of the volunteers is a significant factor in situations like this.  Their presence "on paper" can lead to the perception that a small staff of career personnel are expendable and not really needed.  Particularly in tough financial times.
 
The volunteers themselves may not be directly responsible for the decision, but they essentially become accomplices by allowing themselves to be used as pawns in the process by not speaking out against the cuts.
 
For the most part, the career staff in a primarily volunteer department are there for a reason.  They serve to suppliment an inherent deficiency in the volunteer staffing model, inconsisent availability to respond in a timely fashion 24/7.
 
If you eliminate the career staff without resolving the reason they existed, then there will be negative consequences on the response end of things.  That's not a scare tactic, that's reality.

It's my experience that even Volunteer Chiefs take an oath of office as they assume the job.  While some may see this as a formality many of of don't.  You're swearing to do the job to the best of your ability and protect the citizens and your firefighters.  You're not swearing to settle a score with the paid guys or use you power to carry out a vendetta routed in jealousy.   It's a well established fact that volunteer fire departments everywhere are suffering from a shortage of qualified volunteers and the average age of volunteers is steadily increasing.  I for the life of me can't see how any fire chief paid or volunteer could be doing their job to protect the safety of their members or the public if they support decreasing staff.  Having some fully qualified staff guaranteeing apparatus response and fully capable firefighters on scene for every response is something many communities and chiefs can only dream of and recently we're seeing two cases of these communities where the sworn leaders have gone on the record that cutting staff will not effect their department's ability.  I'd love to hear the argument of how having less members on scene or waiting for a volunteer arrive and drive a fire apparatus will be a benefit to anyone.   

 
Trama - I thank you for posting this article. 
 
As I see it "volunteer firefighters can NOT replace career firefighters". There are just too many requirements put on today firefighters to get physically fit individuals, some with family obligations, to offer their services today. The training requirements alone take up a large percentage of time. This we see the nationwide DECLINE in the numbers of those joining the volunteer firefighter ranks. And many of those who do join, are often goal oriented to become career firefighters. 
 
The volunteer firefighters of America are a dying breed. Sad but very true. Long gone are the days of the local mill workers or the farmers leaving their jobs to help their neighbor in time if need. 
 
For a place like Garden City to loose the services of FDNY members as volunteer firefighters because they fully back their other career brothers is a double edge blade for this city. Yet, just about any career firefighter who also volunteers their services would be expected to do the same. 
Just recently, one career firefighter who is also a volunteer firefighter in his hometown, protected by a combination dept, including approximately 60 career firefighters, helped to propose the elimination of 16 career firefighters. As it stands that has not happened but clearly that was part of his plan. All while he collects a paycheck and benefits as a career firefighter from another department very similar in size, just 15-20 miles away. 
 
Needless to say, he has earned his own reputation among BOTH departments these days. 
 
I have hundreds of stories I could tell. Spending five years as a volunteer firefighter in one place, where everybody got a long great. Then becoming a career firefighter just about 75 miles away, where I soon found out I had entered a "War Zone". I couldn't believe it. That was in 1975 and it's still the same if not worse today. As for the other combo dept, they still run that career engine and the volunteer rescue truck manned by volunteers. All working together out of the same firehouse.
 
I find it also interesting how my many friends, who are volunteer firefighters, respect career firefighters for what they do. "We'll, we certainly respect those VOLUNTER firefighters for what they do as well". Quite honestly, I could not do it. 
 
There should be absolutely NO REASON at all, why a group of volunteer firefighters would be willing to stand by and watch as career firefighters loose the jobs they worked so hard to get. If you are one of those volunteer firefighters who would rather see those guys in the unemployment line, "I suggest you think that over". As volunteer firefighters you are the guys who are supposed to be caring and compassionate of others. You should probably keep that in mind.

With the "enlightening" events this week pertaining to the Port Chester Fire Chief, let us all remember a few things when voting in a volunteer chief of department:
 
1) If he uses some sort of political campaign (funded or non) to become chief, you shouldn't vote for him.
2) If he tells you he's qualified for the position, you shouldn't vote for him.
3) If he constantly comes up with excuses for his mistakes or blames others, you shouldn't vote for him.
4) If you didn't like him as an assistant chief, you shouldn't vote for him.
5) If he did a terrible job as the assistant chief, you shouldn't vote for him.
 
I could keep going on with this list, but the gist of it is that volunteers need to pay attention to rising officers and determine if they have an actual love for and willingness to do the job, have the background, training, and experience to move upward, and the leadership abilities to conduct oneself and represent the department.  You have to separate those officers that belong in the ranks from those who act as politicians to climb the [proverbial] ladder.  Personally, I want the guy that is willing to deal with the headaches, the blows from the trustees/commissioners/etc., be able to deal with complex situations (both within the firehouse and on the fireground), and, more importantly, isn't going to put anyone, firefighter or civilian, in an unnecessary line of danger.  Unfortunately, Port Chester is left with the guy that is at the other end of the spectrum, and now he's dealing with some MAJOR repercussions.

See I think better then Stamford , more coming !
 

Fired ? He should be run out of town, maybe back to North White Plains. No, wait a minute, they already threw him out. What a coward. 

 
Mel Brooks ? Alfred Hitchcock and Rod Serling are no longer with us.

I beg to differ regarding if a career person made these statements whether there would be a line of volunteers calling for his (her) head. 
 
Did you ever work (or serve) in a combo dept. ? If you did, then you know the correct answer. 
 
Lets not beat this thing to death. Hopefully everything will come out in the wash.
 

I also disagree.  I've seen a number of examples in which a career firefighter was caught doing/saying something inappropriate and plenty have called for their termination, even if the infraction didn't really warrant termination.  Several have resigned as a result of these situations and the reaction to them.

No one has seen a more chaotic volunteer vs career situation than the two responding members of the Stamford Fire Dept. I am referring to the two above posters calling themselves "AFS1970" and "X152". Personally I have no idea who they are. Except that I have a few long time personnel friends in that department. I assume those that posted are career firefighters.
 
For anyone, to make a statement such as the one reported by Channel 12 News is totally unacceptable. Somebody said it and somebody is to blame for it.
 
Very often facts are withheld until the right time presents itself. We see that every day in a court of law. Apparently the person recording this felt the timing was now right to present it. I have to agree with that as I think this builds a better case for those eight Port Chester firefighters of getting their jobs back. Somebody, clearly is recorded as advising people to damage another firefighters home. Should the entire volunteer system in Port Chester be blamed for this ? Of course not. But I would expect those other members to fully support these firefighters.
 
 What if that statement were made by a CAREER FIREFIGHTER ? Does that change it ? Well, clearly there would be some type of discipline taken against that firefighter by a superior officer or chief. No doubt a price would have to be paid. Maybe a suspension and loss of pay, or termination. It is just not allowed or accepted for a career firefighter - ANYPLACE - to get away with that. Most career firefighters can be held responsible for anything they say or do under the rules of a semi military type organization.
 
  There is clearly another indirect lesson to be learned here by both career AND volunteer firefighters. Regardless of what you think, each and every one of you are held to a much higher standard by the general public. Let the office worker be arrested for a causing a fatal DUI accident and nobody really knows where he works or if he gives his co-workers a bad name. Let that same thing happen where a firefighter is the cause of that fatal DUI accident and the headlines clearly show; "FIREFIGHTER the cause of fatal DUI accident". The entire Fire Dept must carry that negative reputation around with it - Volunteer or City Paid.
 
 People expect you to be of higher character than their neighbor down the street. "I know I do". People will hand their sick child over to a total stranger in a firefighters uniform. They expect you to be of good character.